LGBT Federal Workers Lose Job Protections

[Limbought]

LGBT Federal Workers Lose Job Protections
by Paul Johnson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau Chief

Posted: March 17, 2004 2:01 p.m. ET

(Washington, D.C.) Gay and lesbians in the entire federal workforce have had their job protections officially removed by the office of Special Counsel. The new Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, says his interpretation of a 1978 law intended to protect employees and job applicants from adverse personnel actions is that gay and lesbian workers are not covered.

Bloch said that the while a gay employee would have no recourse for being fired or demoted for being gay, that same worker could not be fired for attending a gay Pride event.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/03/031704fedWorkers.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JESUS FUCKING KEY-RIST!

I strongly suggest we all sign up for "the party" ASAP! Maybe there is still a chance of getting a low number.

What's next, official identity papers listing your religious & sexual orentation? Will liberals get seats in the middle of the bus, & "fags/lezzies" be forced to sit in the back? And of course, it goes without saying that only members in good standing of "the party" should be allowed responsible positions, in or outside the government.

Wake up America, you are obviously with THEM or against THEM!

FIGHT AGAINST THEM!

[Gman]

1. So vote Nader and elect Bush

You vote for Nader, you're voting for this stuff.

[tom_paine]

2. Yes, a vote for Nader is a vote for the Imperial Family

Who's loony enough to do that?!?

:wtf:

Might I also suggest slicing off your nose to spite your face?

That'll teach that face, allright!

[indigo32]

4. just curious

where voting for Nader was discussed in that post?

[Gman]

6. Oh, its not there

but I just want to remind people what they will get if they vote for Nader. I think its pretty clear.

[havocmom]

3. yep, this is a test to see how much the public is willing to take

One of the big issues with outsourcing I never see addressed is conditions for workers. All we hear about is the difference in $$ between what corporations have to pay US workers and 3rd world workers.

It is also about laws protecting workers and the environment. They are gonna see how far they can push people fearful about their jobs. Then they are gonna keep rolling back protection for workers and the environment.

Make noise about this one, people. They will keep 'de-humanizing' groups until they get around to you. We are all in this together or we are all sunk.

[outinforce]

5. Wrong!

On another thread, a poster asked what agitprop was.

This newsrelease from 365gay.com is a good example of pure agitprop.

It makes it appear as though it would be possible for a federal employee to be fired or demoted -- without recourse -- simply for being gay.

Wrong.

In order to fire or demote most federal employees (the exception being politcal appointees) the agency attempting to do the demoting or the firing must -- MUST -- always show a nexus between the reason for the firing or demotion and "the efficiency of the service".

Any federal employee who would be fired or demoted -- simply for being gay -- would have recourse either to file and appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board or to file a grievance (in most cases, through the procedures negotiated as part of a contract between a union and the agency where the employee works). Grievances that are not resolved in the employee's favor may be ubjected to binding arbitration.

There are several agencies which have -- as a matter of agency policy -- non-discrimination against gays. Since agencies must follow their own policies, a grievance alleging that an employee in one of these agencies had been fired for being gay would almost certainly prevail, and the demoted or fired employee would be re-hired or re-promoted (with back pay and interest, and most likely attorneys fees paid be the agency).

And any agency that attempted to fire an employee simply for being gay would have a very difficult -- extremely difficult -- time showing how being gay has a negative effect on the efficiency of the federal service.

It's pure agitpror from 365gay.com

[atreides1]

7. But......

...how many political appointees are not part of that merit system.

I use to work for the federal government, and what you say is true, but that would be under an administration that played by the rules.
This administration is already well known for either changing the rules or making sure that their people are already in positions to
interpret the rules just like Mr. Bloch did.

And remember when they created the DHS, they either removed or altered the rules that cover federal employees. Like the whistle blower protections, this way if the DHS step on their dicks, no one can tell without fear of losing their jobs. And let's face it the way
the job market is at this point, who would inform the public if DHS
were asleep, should another attack happen on American soil.

Besides even if this goes to court, eventually the government would find a judge that rules in their favor, or the employee would run out of money trying to fight it. Either way Mr. Bloch and his traitorous
slime would still win, it just would take time.

[blm]

8. But...We are told daily there is not much difference between Bush & Kerry.

You mean we're being LIED to by people here at DU?

[outinforce]

9. I'm Not Suggesting That Anyone is Lying, BUT

As I said earlier, this whole "story" is pure agitprop.

If you go to the link, you get to a story on gay365.com.

And that article quotes Elaine Kaplan, former Director of the US Office of Special Counsel.

What the article does NOT say is exactly how many employees in the entire Federal Government were saved from being fired or demoted simply because they were gay -- under the policies that Kaplan enforced.

My guess is that the number was most likely zero. CErtainly fewer than 5.

[lcooksey]

10. The article says there are 3 cases currently pending

And that it is not clear if the OSC will continue to persue them and defend the employees. So there have been cases, even where agencies have policies against discrimination, where discrimination is alleged to have happened.

The statement by Bloch that he will not protect workers from discrimination based on orientation is clearly, to me, designed to intimidate LGBT employees and keep them in the closet.

There is a longer article on the same subject in the Federal Times,
http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2727185

[Deja Q]

11. I wonder if Scott Bloch would like it if the same happened to him...

Sad.

Our society is degenerate in so many ways that it's almost induced apathy.

[revree]

12. THEY BETTER VOTE FOR KERRY

Or else they are just as much to blame as the bastards that took their benefits and rights away...

[snippy]

13. Bloch lied under oath about this in his confirmation hearings.

But he is a Bush republican so that is a good and godly thing.